[exuvia]

[quote name='besyry' timestamp='1282403198' post='1996']

How about considering each manufacturers service record in your country. I've had many problems Canon, but the warranty service has been good (at least in the U.S.)

[/quote]



this is a good one. I've been a subscriber of the French magazine Chasseur d'Image for about 10 years, and Canon Service in France is known to be awful. Don't know about the others, they never came up in the magazine (which could be an indication by itself).

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Bare' timestamp='1282401996' post='1995']

Try to shhot with Canon IS II and than withh Nikkor VR II at contra light and you will see which one is better, nano coating makes the difference.

[/quote]

Oh no, the magical nano coating rears its funny head again. It is amazing what properties Nikonians put in the term "nano coating".... It might interest you to know that Canon uses similar coatings, just does not put such a marketing spin on it.



Care to show the difference?



Not a good idea though, to shoot with the Nikon 70-200 f2.8 VR II into the light.



http://www.lenstip.com/258.9-Lens_review-Nikon_Nikkor_AF-S_70-200_mm_f_2.8G_ED_VR_II_Ghosting_and_flares.html







Nothing magical about "nano coating".



Here the few years old Canon 70-200 f4 L IS USM:

http://www.lenstip.com/25.9-Lens_review-Canon_EF_70-200mm_f_4L_IS_USM_Ghosting_and_flares.html

[Bare]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1282405562' post='1998']

Oh no, the magical nano coating rears its funny head again. It is amazing what properties Nikonians put in the term "nano coating".... It might interest you to know that Canon uses similar coatings, just does not put such a marketing spin on it.

[/quote]



I ddi not say that Nano coating is best coating, it's the Pentax SMC which is the best. I konow that Canon has their equivalent of nano coating but ic can be found in verry small number of lenses.



When you give a examples both must be shoot at the same time and without lens hood and I can assure you that Nikkor VRII will be better than Canon ISII. And wone more thing, shotting at the contra-light is not same with the shooting to the sun.

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Bare' timestamp='1282406756' post='2000']

I ddi not say that Nano coating is best coating, it's the Pentax SMC which is the best. I konow that Canon has their equivalent of nano coating but ic can be found in verry small number of lenses.



When you give a examples both must be shoot at the same time and without lens hood and I can assure you that Nikkor VRII will be better than Canon ISII. And wone more thing, shotting at the contra-light is not same with the shooting to the sun.

[/quote]

Light is light, if the Canon does same or better with these flare tests, it does the same or better with contra light.



No, will you show how much better the Nikon VR II is in contra light compared to the Canon IS USM II?

[Brightcolours]

[quote name='Bare' timestamp='1282406756' post='2000']

I ddi not say that Nano coating is best coating, it's the Pentax SMC which is the best. I konow that Canon has their equivalent of nano coating but ic can be found in verry small number of lenses.

[/quote]

Both the Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L IS USM and Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM II have the latest coatings.

[wim]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1282384216' post='1987']

Wim, you are totally forgetting the Sigma 8-16mm. That is king of the hill. [/quote]

Well, that's very extreme UWA, and since I haven't tried one yet, considering my experiences with its FF equivalent, I'd honestly have to see it first for myself. Also, it is a slow lens, where the Tokina is a great lens for low light stuff.

The Canon 10-22mm is a good UWA too.

Yes, I had one for several years, from right when I got my first dslr until I moved to FF for good.



It does suffer a bit of PF, though, especially (as is to be expected) with large contrast transitions.





I also reckon that the 17-40L on FF is better.

I am seriously not impressed with the actual build quality of my Tokina 12-24mm... and most probably will not burn my fingers on the Tokina 11-16mm f2.8. Also, considering it has that CA again.

It isn't all that bad IMO, and it is proper CA, quite easily correctable <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.

So for me, it would be a choice between Canon 10-22mm USM and Sigma 8-16mm, a choice between lens with filter thread and protected by hood front element, and lens with more width, sharpness and exposed front element.



Further I would like to point out to old wolf that you had a problem with the viewfinder of the 7D because you are a glasses wearer and that is very personal in your case, and I would like to ask you, Winm, if that is the same with the D300? To old wolf, you have to try view finders out yourself.

I can't remember to be very honest, it has been some time no since I last looked through a D300 VF. The D700 is fine, though, if that is of any help <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. My problem really is that I only look at Nikons out of curiosity, to keep more or less up-to-date with what's happening in dslr-land, and some friends of mine own D700s, so I get to handle one every so often <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. Only 1 person I know owns a d300, but he rarely brings it along.



I do prefer my 5D II, however <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. And I always have it with me, except when doing the weekly shop (but in that case I have the G10 <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />).



Kind regards, Wim

[wim]

[quote name='Vieux loup' timestamp='1282387099' post='1990']

Thank you again to Wim and Brightcolours for good advice and ideas. And Brightcolours, how in the world do you know that I wear glasses? <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/mellow.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> And Wim, I suppose you completely change strategy if you go with mostly primes; a lot of cropping and resizing which you can do because the sharpness is such that you can pick out whatever detail you want?[/quote]

Funnily enough I rarely crop. I normally see a scene and know which lens I need to get the framing I want, and where to position myself more or less for the perspective I want. Apart from that, I have always tried to fill my negatives to the max (which also meant I had to do my own printing, because laboratories always cut off too much), and that is no different now, with digital.



I do find myself cropping if I haven't been able to anticipate something happening, like this juvenile songthrush recently, which suddenly appeared in one of the branches of a potted (large pot, 1.4 meters high) weeping cedar in our garden. I just got a 100-400 and the 1D Mk III quickly, and managed to shoot a few frames in successionat 400 mm through a double glazed window before it flew off. Although the composition was fine IMO, you didn't see too much of the bird, so I cropped that by 30 % or so.



That's a typical situation where I do crop, but other than that, I just try to get the framing right the first time.



I actually found I used zooms as varifocals anyway, IOW, as fixed focals with the ability to frame a little. However, in most cases with most zooms I found I either hovered along the extremes (UWA and WA at the short end, tele zooms at the long end), or right in the geometrical middle FL. So I figured I coudl just as well go back to using primes in that case, for better IQ and larger apertures. I don't regret at all I did that, although I was afraid I would <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />. I always thought I would never sell my 70-200 F/4L IS, bu tI find I don't miss it.

I now certainly have enough to start my actual trying out process and I will keep you up to date on how it works out. Obviously, the first step is to find a shop with all or most of the models in store to try out. I have a feel that we will have the 60d with video and maybe the D700 with video before or during the Photokina, which might make my choice either more complicated or simple, as the case may be. Do you have a good suggestion for a good bag to stuff a body and some lenses with a little bit of accessories like flash, etc? My old bags have holes and mold all over them, so they need to be renewed. <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/huh.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' /> Wish me luck and thank you in advance for your good ideas <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />

Well, I reckon you probably need at least three bags: one rucksack model for trekking/hiking/walking, one that holds all (camera(s), lenses, flash, accessories, etc.), and one smaller one for the minimum type of gear you'd want to take along (1 camera body plus 2 to 3 lenses).



Personally I prefer LowePro for those tasks, although I do like Crumpler for the combined office and photography bags (laptop with assorted stuff, writing materials, and camera with 3 or 4 lenses and assorted stuff) <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Kind regards, Wim

[wim]

[quote name='Bare' timestamp='1282401996' post='1995']

Try to shhot with Canon IS II and than withh Nikkor VR II at contra light and you will see which one is better, nano coating makes the difference.

[/quote]

So, do you have any samples?



Generally Canon lenses are better at dealing with contralight than Nikkor lenses are; you only have to check the tests here on Photozone.



Furthermore only a few lenses have nano coating right now, about the same amount as Canon lenses with SWC coating.



Since I did own and try several Nikkors, and have owned and still own a few Canons too, I can only say that the findings here and on other sites corroborate my own findings in this regard. Nikkor flares and veils more than Canon, by a rather long shot. OTOH, it isn't really something to worry about, because these situations only tend to occur when you actually look for them.



Just don't use low quality filters on lenses when shooting digital in more difficult lighting conditions: that is asking for trouble.



Kind regards, Wim

[wim]

[quote name='Bare' timestamp='1282406756' post='2000']

I ddi not say that Nano coating is best coating, it's the Pentax SMC which is the best. [/quote]

Not by a long shot these days. That stopped about 15-20 years ago. I should know as a former, long-time Pentax shooter, with quite a bunch of lenses. Suffice to say I sold my remaining 4 bodies and 13 lenses about 7-8 years ago, when the digital slr age started looming rather large.

I konow that Canon has their equivalent of nano coating but ic can be found in verry small number of lenses.

When you give a examples both must be shoot at the same time and without lens hood and I can assure you that Nikkor VRII will be better than Canon ISII. And wone more thing, shotting at the contra-light is not same with the shooting to the sun.

No it isn't, you are right with that. Contralight with the sun just outside the view is the worst for sure. And funnily enough Canon lenses tend to handle those situations extremely well, even their widest and widest aperture lenses.



Kind regards, Wim

[wim]

[quote name='Brightcolours' timestamp='1282407821' post='2002']

Both the Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L IS USM and Canon EF 70-200mm f2.8 L IS USM II have the latest coatings.

[/quote]

Plus 24L II, TS-E 17L, TS-E 24 L II, and I think there are a few more.



The "old" coating wasn't bad either. Try to get flares with e.g., a 24L Mk I, 50L, 85L or 135L for that matter. It can be done, except for the 50L, but it ain't easy <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />.



Kind regards, Wim